Cole v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Cole v. State

24 So. 2d 239, 156 Fla. 706, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 974

DecidedDecember 18, 1945

StatusPublished

This text of 24 So. 2d 239 (Cole v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cole v. State, 24 So. 2d 239, 156 Fla. 706, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 974 (Fla. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

ADAMS, J.:

Appellant was convicted on an information charging murder in the third degree. She waived a jury and was tried before the court. The only question we consider essential to discuss is whether the evidence is sufficient.

Appellant is a naturopath physician and the deceased came to her for treatment. It is the state’s contention that appellant produced an abortion on deceased which resulted in her death. It is appellant’s contention that deceased had the abortion when she first saw her and that she merely treated her for the after effects. It would serve no useful purpose to detail at length the evidence pro and con on these contentions. We have studied it carefully and find it inadequate to satisfy the requirements of the law.

The judgment is reversed.

TERRELL, BROWN and BUFORD, JJ., concur. CHAPMAN, C. J., THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ADAMS, J.:

Appellant was convicted on an information charging murder in the third degree. She waived a jury and was tried before the court. The only question we consider essential to discuss is whether the evidence is sufficient.

Appellant is a naturopath physician and the deceased came to her for treatment. It is the state’s contention that appellant produced an abortion on deceased which resulted in her death. It is appellant’s contention that deceased had the abortion when she first saw her and that she merely treated her for the after effects. It would serve no useful purpose to detail at length the evidence pro and con on these contentions. We have studied it carefully and find it inadequate to satisfy the requirements of the law.

The judgment is reversed.

TERRELL, BROWN and BUFORD, JJ., concur. CHAPMAN, C. J., THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 So. 2d 239, 156 Fla. 706, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-v-state-fla-1945.